If you're interested in editorial portraiture in general and celebrity portraits in particular, you probably already know about the teNeues magnum opus
of the work of he's-everywhere man-o'-the-moment Martin Schoeller, who I don't know and about whom I know nothing. I don't really care for Martin's Sunday-magazine style much, to be honest, although I certainly admire his level of accomplishment and work ethic, from my vantage point way down here in the foothills far below the snowy Olympian peak he inhabits.
Vincent Peters (same publisher) is a bit more to my own taste, although I don't know much about these genres in general. "How can a photographer of internationally known stars create iconic portraits that linger in the memory—especially since these actors have already been photographed and filmed millions of times?" asks the blurb—and then answers itself by saying that Vincent Peters "relies entirely on the classic art of portrait photography for his pictures."
...Well, classic portrait photography as well as all the boudoir-ish signifiers of sexuality so common in current fashion photography, I'd say. Much fashion photography seems more interested in models and their bodies than the often provocative or skimpy "fashions" they happen to be wearing. (As far as fashion photography goes, I prefer Bill Cunningham -style fashion-on-the-hoof photography of the sort practiced by The Sartorialist, which intersects not only with fashion but with street portraiture of the Humans of New York variety.)
Too much sexuality-signifier fashion and it's almost a relief to alight on Angels, a book in which clothing is mainly dispensed with altogether. This one's a best-seller, probably deservedly so. "Russell James has spent 15 years being the primary photographer for the lovely and fascinating women who have been featured by Victoria's Secret over the years. [...] This ample volume showcases these heavenly representations of womanhood in all their splendor. Subtly provocative in a tastefully seductive manner, these portraits capture each model's individual blend of physical attractiveness and beguiling personality." Those, in case you need it pointed out, are correct code-words for "soft porn."
If that's what you like, you might enjoy Frank De Mulder's Glorious, published by guess who.
But rather than look further in that particular direction, let's take the fork in that road and arrive at fine-art nudes, of which Ralph Gibson's Nude is an outstanding recent example (finally, a publisher other than teNeues: this one's put out by Taschen).
I got to go out photographing with Ralph on one of my few jaunts out of the bunker, in the 1990s. A studio visit too, on which occasion he gave me a stack of his then-recently published books. One was a small volume of nudes, an extended portrait of his then (and maybe still, I don't know) girlfriend. A charming little book of mostly nudes called A Propos De Mary Jane. I still have it and still like it. [UPDATE: Apparently Mary Jane Marcasiano is married to Ralph, or was as of 2010 according to what we can find out. Mary Jane is the founder of Made With Love, a global initiative dedicated to raising funds and awareness for NGOs aiding women and children in need through the production and sale of products that provide a fair income for women in Brazil and Africa. Thanks to Hugh Crawford for this. —Ed.]
(Also—geekery alert—Ralph showed me his Leitz enlarger, which he had purchased from Robert Frank. It is the selfsame one which Robert Frank had used to print the original pictures for The Americans. I told him the enlarger belongs in the Smithsonian Institution when he's done with it.)
Ralph's nudes of his GF [wife—see above] gets me at last back home to my own favorite genre of pictures of women, which is the old and honorable motif of photographers who have made loving extended portraits of their own wives. Emmet Gowin's pictures, in his first book, of Edith (who I met once as well—she speaks in a high twang that startled me at first); Harry Callahan's pictures of Eleanor, which, taken altogether, are probably the pinnacle of this particular genre (that's a nice article at the link if you know Callahan's work); or Lee Friedlander's many pictures over many years of Maria:
Lee Friedlander with his wife and frequent muse Maria
in 1963 (above) and 1997 (below). Both photos by Lee Friedlander.
But those kinds of photographs are about love and not just sex, so maybe they're outside the scope of this post.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
The flesh and the spirit abideth not here
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Jim Simmons: "I don't think Lee would be Lee without Maria, and I think he knows it. To be married to someone who understands and values your work is a gift."
Ken: "Woulda been nice to get an NSFW warning with a link saying click here to read the rest of this blog. I think I'll just stop perusing your blog for a while. Not to say I don't like seeing pictures of pretty women, but I reckon at least some people (besides me) check out your blog during breaks at work and this is not very helpful. Nude book covers are still nudes, a big no-no in today's corporate America."
Mike replies: I think we're very considerate. These are book covers, and way beyond tame. Isn't there any limit to how prudish we have to be?
Marcelo Guarini: "Just from watching the cover photos of the books, and those that accompany each one of them on the Amazon site, I am so attracted to those of Ralph Gibson. I love the play of light and shadow, and the tight composition of his photographs. He is really a true master and artist. When I was doing my Ph.D at U of A, I took away many hours to admire his originals at the Center for Creative Photography."
Anonymous: "So why aren't there any penis heads being photographed and displayed as art photography? Oh wait, that would be called porn, but tits and female ass, well that's different because the man says so."
Mike replies: Oh, but there are. Never heard of Vivienne Maricevic or Robert Mapplethorpe? RM's major book is back in print again. And "soft" male nudes have a long and distinguished history among photography books (as you'll see at any well-stocked big-city bookstore's photography section), as well as among art photographers, and in fashion photography as well of course. You could go all the way back to pictorialists like Wilhelm Von Gloeden, F. Holland Day (this
is in print now but Estelle Jussim's is the classic work), and early fashion photographers such as George Platt Lynes
. For some male-body-inflected fashion photography, check Herb Ritts
or Bruce Weber among many others. All that's just the tip of a very extensive iceberg.
As for why it's males who usually objectify visuals, check standard sociobiology (a.k.a. evolutionary biology, a.k.a. evolutionary psychology) texts. The seminal work is Edward O. Wilson's Sociobiology, out in a beautiful twenty-fifth anniversary edition, although I think the abridged edition
is more recommendable, because really, who has time to read a lot of sociobiology?
Photo by Wilhelm von Gloeden. That's not a cigar, it's a flute.
The only heterosexual female counterpart to male photographers making extended portraits of their wives that I can think of off the top of my head is that Sally Mann did a book of pictures of her husband Larry. The book, called Proud Flesh, is out of print, but some of the pictures can be seen here.
Wait, one more just popped into my mind—the editorial photographer Kate Hutchinson has done a lot of photographs of her new love then new husband Chris. It's not a book that I know of, just a category on her website.
Excellent post, Mike. Thank you.
Posted by: John Brewton | Wednesday, 10 December 2014 at 04:04 PM
A 1997 film 'selfie'…been around longer than most appreciate.
Posted by: Jeff | Wednesday, 10 December 2014 at 04:37 PM
So much nude photography is complete bollocks - photographers caught in the headlights of the nude figure.
Posted by: ericke | Wednesday, 10 December 2014 at 04:45 PM
Hi
with regard to the final ->love aspect of photography -- do you know the wonderful Rene Groebli book The Eye of Love? 1954.
I say no more
Danny, UK
Posted by: Danny | Wednesday, 10 December 2014 at 05:42 PM
Crap, by any other name, is still crap!
Posted by: Bill Mitchell | Wednesday, 10 December 2014 at 08:16 PM
Our spouses are not the most available subject for a variety of reasons. I get more chances to photograph my wife when we're travelling together. But that's also when there are many competing photo-ops.
She likes this one. Me, too. But maybe for different reasons.
Posted by: Sarge | Wednesday, 10 December 2014 at 08:41 PM
Could never quite get a handle on Martin Schoeller until today when I looked at the portrait he took of Chris Rock on the inside of New York magazine- a uniquely flattering photo of the comedian. And then I realized his portraits have a way of drawing you in- but they don't go anywhere. He's very much interested in the topography of people's faces, and presents them in a fairly interesting perspective. But that's it- he doesn't even attempt to go for what's underneath. They're purely surface, perfect for celebrities!
Posted by: Stan B. | Wednesday, 10 December 2014 at 09:51 PM
Mike,
Take a look at today's Imaging Resource…..
Posted by: James | Wednesday, 10 December 2014 at 10:39 PM
Maybe if your company wants to censor what you read on the internet, you could use your smartphone, or even wait till you get home?
Posted by: Hugh | Thursday, 11 December 2014 at 02:11 PM
I (thankfully) grew up in the sixties, when women were beautiful, desirable, and photographable. Now in my sixties,they still are. What's your objection..religion? Whichever Almighty you worship supposedly created women ..... and made them to be desirable to the opposite sex (yes - Sex)Being desirable promotes procreation, which is a necessity of continuing life on Earth. Does a bathing suit require an NSFW warning these days? Because these pictures, (with the exception of the dreaded breast) show no more. And then that NIPPLE (Run, run, that baby feeding device is out in the open!)
Grow up folks - it's everywhere - and it's not "indecent" - it's more than decent. Adam & Eve were nekkid! I may have to continue perusing your blog twice as often, to make up for those who are going to stop .. for a while. "Isn't there any limit to how prudish we have to be?"
Thanks Mike.
Posted by: Gabe | Thursday, 11 December 2014 at 06:17 PM
"Isn't there any limit to how prudish we have to be?"
I have a good deal of sympathy for Ken (except for the part where he says he might stop reading the blog.) In the corporate world, the level of acceptable nudity is determined by the office's most extreme crank, who may be offended by passing your computer screen in 1/4 of second. A charge of sexual harassment is every corporation's nightmare, because there's always the threat of getting tangled up in the federal civil rights bureaucracy, etc. Ken isn't being a prude, he'd just trying to hang onto his job.
[The question isn't whether it's good to protect readers at their work (it is), the question is whether those book covers are actually enough to get anyone into trouble at work, anywhere. I have trouble believing it. Can anyone speak directly to that? A Human Resources director at an actual company, say? --Mike]
Posted by: John Camp | Friday, 12 December 2014 at 01:32 PM
I was going to say pretty much what Gabe said...Thanks Gabe. We really need to be more rational and much less prudish. The attitudes I so frequently see expressed about nudes make me sad. We had very different attitudes about this in the 1960s when I was a teenager reading photo magazines that often included nudes. I don't understand how the US has regressed so much. As our European friends can attest, it's pretty much a sad phenomenon of the United States.
Posted by: Dave Levingston | Friday, 12 December 2014 at 02:17 PM
Sad reality.
From John Bergers "Ways of Seeing":
"Men act, and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. this determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves. The surveyor of women in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object - and most particularly and object of vision: a sight"
Sad reality, especially for women.
Posted by: Michael Olson | Friday, 12 December 2014 at 03:26 PM
On NSFW content, one of the Internet's most popular blogs ran into the problem and mostly solved it by limiting such content to Saturdays:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/07/12/the-dishs-nsfw-saturday-night/
Roger Ebert dealt with the problem back in 2010:
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/to-nsfw-or-not-to-nsfw-now-sfw
There's little any of us can do about workplace rules, even if we think they are silly. Their enforcement can have serious consequences.
Thanks.
Posted by: scott | Friday, 12 December 2014 at 03:57 PM
I would like to echo John Camp's comment. I'm not offended by the displayed book covers, but I (like many others, I suspect) read TOP at work and I can't choose what my co-workers will find offensive or not. I could forgo reading TOP at work altogether, true, but... I'd really like to continue reading at work and I would like to think that Mike would like me to as well.
Andrew Sullivan, founder of The Dish, ran into a similar conundrum in 2013 when he posted an anatomical (i.e. non-titillating) photograph of a scrotum on his blog. He didn't post a NSFW warning and his readers got upset. You can read about it here:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/07/12/the-dishs-nsfw-saturday-night/
I wholeheartedly agree with the second letter writer in the post. Key quote: "It’s not a matter of Puritianism; it’s a matter of Internet etiquette."
I personally would have appreciated a NSFW warning, but it's still your blog and your rules.
Posted by: HT | Friday, 12 December 2014 at 04:25 PM
I want to clarify a couple of things about my earlier comment. As Mr. Camp kindly pointed out (and correctly understood), I am simply interested in hanging on to my job, especially considering the paucity of opportunities in my (legal-related) field.
Anyone who doesn't get that this is not about prudishness is lucky enough to not work in corporate America, especially in the legal fields.
Whether it is the cover of a book is irrelevant, a bottomless woman partially covering her crotch with her hands, a side view of a naked woman doubled over herself and the profile of a naked breast are still … nudes. (And of course, now you added a naked man, even if it's discreetly posed.)
I did not mean I never want to read your blog again - just that I can't risk opening it from work again. I'll just try to follow it from home, but it does change my routine!
Finally, I did not imply that you shouldn't run nudes - if that's what your readers want (or what you want, since it is YOUR blog, after all). I just meant that it would be nice to have some warning for those, like me, who work in cube farms in the corporate world and need to be careful about not offending co-workers (or HR types). Others' mileage will undoubtedly vary. Thanks!
Ken
Posted by: Ken | Friday, 12 December 2014 at 04:56 PM
Mike, working in the Australian public service I'd definitely be in a lot of trouble if the wrong person walking past saw a tasteful black and white nipple. My cries of "but art" would fall on deaf ears.
Posted by: TimF | Friday, 12 December 2014 at 05:49 PM
Regarding Sally Mann, I only, just, like his early work and family pictures. To me her current work is only gimmick, stained and scratched prints (negatives perhaps). I know she is trying to give a connotation to her work, but if you have to resort to that craftiness, mmmm I think the original photo is just worthless. I went to an exhibit of her and I only spent a few seconds in front of each of her prints and at the end I was quite cold and bored. I think it is so much hipe around her work, same as with Chuck Close. Our University in Santiago was very proud to offer an exhibit of his work. I went, and again I got quite bored, yes very large prints of faces closeups, some of them self portraits, with every single pore resolved. Sorry, but I can do the same with a Nikon D810 and an 85mm f1.2. Large pictures in a large exhibit room look impressive, that's why every artist today wants to prints large. I made a couple of prints of one of my pictures, one 11x14" and the other 22x29". I mounted them exactly the same using Westminster mat boards and 117 matte black Nielsen frames. I hanged for one month the small print in my office, which is a large office (17x17') where is my desk and a large meeting table and other furnitures. Nobody, really nobody that went to my office during that month said anything about my picture. Then, I replaced the picture with the large one and everybody that visited my office from then on expressed how extraordinary was my picture.
Anyway, I like much more Jock Sturges work than Sally Mann work
Posted by: Marcelo Guarini | Friday, 12 December 2014 at 11:33 PM
I'm just a little surprised at some readers' reaction to an employer restricting what you can do at work on a computer owned by the employer, using the employers network, while you're supposed to be, well, working.
Posted by: Bill Tyler | Saturday, 13 December 2014 at 12:11 AM
In a similar vein, as a gay man who discovered his sexuality all too many years ago when even the mention of the subject was taboo.
hve found for the most part our outlook on nudity and hence who we are is compromised by our upbringing and
assumed morals. As I age the existence of the human body in imagery becomes less negative and more beautiful as I understand we too shall never return to the perfection we once thought ourselves and others to be. Best let those who interpret using photography do their thing unhindered for the body beautiful is as we once were.
Posted by: Bryce Lee | Saturday, 13 December 2014 at 12:28 AM
As someone who lives in Germany, I see two reasons why 'NSFW' posts would be a problem here. No.1 is that you don't use work computers for personal use. I think most German office types would be astounded (erstaunt) that American bosses put up with it. The second reason everyone knows: they're not so prudish here. I find it astounding (erstaunlich) that someone could lose their job for having these pictures show up on their screen. However, if they should be working...
Posted by: Chris Donovan | Saturday, 13 December 2014 at 02:51 PM